O’Brien v Cresswell Nominees [1996] IRCA 218

DECISION NO: 218/96 C A T C H W O R D S INDUSTRIAL LAW - TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT - whether termination at the initiative of the employer Industrial Relations Act 1988 ss.170DC, 170DE(1), 170DE(2), 170EE(1)(b)(ii) CASES: Rheinberger v Huzley Marketing Pty Ltd (unreported, Moore J., No. NI 2064R of 1995, 16 April 1996) Mohazab v Dick Smith Electronics Pty Ltd, (unreported, Full Court of the Industrial Relations Court of Australia, No. NI 2571 of 1995, 28 November 1995) ANDREA O'BRIEN - v - CRESSWELL NOMINEES No. VI 5945 of 1995 Before: Judicial Registrar Millane Place: Melbourne Date: 28 May 1996

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VI 5945 of 1995 B E T W E E N : ANDREA O'BRIEN Applicant AND CRESSWELL NOMINEES Respondent MINUTES OF ORDERS Judicial Registrar Millane 28 May 1996 THE COURT DECLARES THAT: 1. The employment of the applicant was terminated by the respondent in contravention of Division III Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988. AND THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 2. The respondent reinstate the applicant by reappointing her to the position in which she was employed immediately before the termination. 3. For all purposes the respondent treat the applicant as having been continuously employed by it from the date of termination to the date of reinstatement. 4. The respondent pay to the applicant the remuneration lost by the applicant because of the termination. 5. There be liberty to each party to apply to the Court on reasonable notice being given to the Court and the other other party concerning the calculation and the amount of the remuneration lost under section 170EE(1)(b)(ii) of the Industrial Relations Act 1988. NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with by Order 36 of the Industrial Relations Court Rules.